Ibn Taymiyyah on hellfire

yes, that is what I was referring to. thank you.

 

Concept of God in Major Religions
Dr. Zakir Abdul Karim Naik
Islamic Research Foundation

https://d1.islamhouse.com/data/en/ih_books/single/en_Concept_of_God_in_Major_Religions.pdf

Relevant extracts from above book follow below.

------------
Page 18
Some people argue that God can do everything, then why cannot He take human form? If God wishes He can become a human being. But then He no longer remains God because the qualities of God and human beings in many respects are completely incompatible.

Page 19
The attributes of Almighty God preclude any evil since God is the fountainhead of justice, mercy and truth. God can never be thought of as doing an ungodly act. Hence we cannot imagine God telling a lie, being unjust, making a mistake, forgetting things, and such other human failings. Similarly God can do injustice if he wants but He will never do it because being unjust is an ungodly act.

The Holy Qur'an says:
"Allah is never unjust In the least degree"
([Holy Qur'an 4:40)

God can be unjust if he wants, but the moment God does injustice He ceases to be God.

 

No, I am not referring to this video, in the book he clearly stated Allah can become human but He will not do that. I post the reference when I find it.

 

This is his speech. He does put the condition "for arguments sake" when answering the question but in essence refutes the idea in his own way.

 

zakir has bigger kufr than this, in one of his book refuting christians he writes that Allah Ta'ala has the bpower to become a haman, but He will no do so because then He will mot remain the Creator.

is there any jahalah bigger than this?

I will dig out the reference later when I get time.

 

Here is a video of zakir naik making a huge blunder in this regard:



1. He doesn't seem to have taken this position from ibn taymiyyah (since he's not a scholar and can't understand Arabic from what I know, he can't access the original works and probably wasn't aware). He seems to have come up with this due to a faulty engagement of his own logic

2. His answer should be that whilst heaven and hell last forever, this does not mean they are eternal as they are contingent and had a beginning etc. Instead, he blunders around and says heaven and hell have an end. He has provided this answer in lectures to audiences around the world via his TV presence. I shudder to think if anyone has been duped by him

3. Many people have spoken against zakir due to being a ghaye muqallid like Albani. In reality, this kufr is worse than any of that. I believe he holds another kufr position regarding a different matter which I may post about separately after rewatching the relevant video.

4. I don't know if he has changed his opinion but his son clearly states here that people stay in heaven forever here:

https://www.facebook.com/zakirnaik/...ntly-is-there-life-after-th/3916663605027808/

I don't think yasir and hamza combined have a reach as far as zakir does. This position of his is what should have been refuted whilst people were busy discussing whether you can ask for mercy for yazeed or not.

 

I completely forgot, Shaykh Abu Adam has asserted many times that that was in fact ibn Taymiyyah's position, and that wahabi elders have been hiding it. So yeah, if that's the case, I do ruju3 on accepting wahabi excuses for him on this point.

Regardless, my point stands that this sleeping fitnah was awoken in the west by mark hanson.

https://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/...s-and-not-affirming-various-other-attributes/



---

aside- 'eternal' is not the right word to use for hellfire or any creation. it refers to being without a beginning and end. "khuld" can't be translated to eternal... lest someone gets confused.

 

I would also have been inclined to believe that Yasir is misrepresenting or has misunderstood- but that is not the impression that I got from the talk given by the Shaykh in the OP. And Yasir does say that Ibn al Qayyim doesn't provide a definitive answer as to what he believes himself in Hadi al Arwah and that he leaves it ambiguous. I am less inclined to believe the wahabbis, tbh- they are known for their whitewashing of the historical figures that they're infatuated with.

Unfortunately, due to Yasir's popularity (that particular video has over 44k views), I shudder to think how many people's imaan has now been ruined by accepting that a kufr position is just a minority position within Sunni Islam (according to him). I believe Gibril Haddad has an answer on eshaykh where he makes it seem like this is a minority position amongst the sahaba as well!

Something interesting that Yasir brought up in the same video is that Iqbal appears to have denied the existence of heaven and hell completely- see here: http://www.allamaiqbal.com/works/prose/english/reconstruction/index.htm

Iqbal says the following: However, according to the teachings of the Qur’an the ego’s re-emergence brings him a “sharp sight” (50: 22) whereby he clearly sees his self-built “fate fastened round his neck.” Heaven and Hell are states, not localities. Their descriptions in the Qur’an are visual representations of an inner fact, i.e. character. Hell, in the words of the Qur’an, is “God’s kindled fire which mounts above the hearts” – the painful realization of one’s failure as a man. Heaven is the joy of triumph over the forces of disintegration. There is no such thing as eternal damnation in Islam. The word “eternity” used in certain verses, relating to Hell, is explained by the Qur’an itself to mean only a period of time (78: 23). Time cannot be wholly irrelevant to the development of personality. Character tends to become permanent; its reshaping must require time. Hell, therefore, as conceived by the Qur’an, is not a pit of everlasting torture inflicted by a revengeful God; it is a corrective experience which may make a hardened ego once more sensitive to the living breeze of Divine Grace. Nor is Heaven a holiday. Life is one and continuous. Man marches always onward to receive ever fresh illuminations from an Infinite Reality which “every moment appears in a new glory”. And the recipient of Divine illumination is not merely a passive recipient. Every act of a free ego creates a new situation, and thus offers further opportunities of creative unfolding.

How exactly has he been getting called Allamah all these years with kufr such as the above?

 

if i remember well from the days that i followed his diatribes, i think keller too doesn't take any solid stance on both these kufr positions, but rather gives some airy fairy answers in trying to show himself off as an expert on all the nuances in Ibn 3Arabi's Fusus and Futuhat and so on. if anyone knows that keller has a clear and crisp stand on this, please advise.

 

this position was a sleeping fitnah, and the one to revive it in the west was mark hanson, only to sound academic, much like how iaw roused the sleeping fitnah of ibn taymiyah himself. (and as usual, i wouldn't just not be surprised, rather i EXPECT him to lie and misrepresent, even ibn taymiyah, or anyone for that matter, to push his agenda. i'm inclined to generously accept the wahabi's excuse for ibn taymiya and rather believe mark hanson and yasir qadhi have blatantly misrepresented his position, see below)

mark hanson keeps propagating that real or perceived position of ibn taymiyah, as well as the kufr position erroneously attributed to Ibn 3Arabi (namely that hellfire will become cool and soothing for its dwellers) for the obvious reason of pushing his perennialist agenda. he has brought them up in his essay in the study Quran too.

lately, yasir qadhi too has been playing fast and loose with wahabiism itself and becoming a modernist, earning the ire of any proper wahabis in the process. (much like how a lot of hard core devbandis look down on faraz rabbani now)

the wahabi cult distances itself from this clearly, and says that

https://www.islamweb.net/ar/fatwa/64739/

apparently - according to above link defending ibn taymiyah - ibn qayyim discussed arguments for and against the termination of hellfire in his book Hadi Al-Arwah, and attributed them to ibn taymiyah, and ibn taymiyah only mentioned them to cite them and refute them, not to report or endorse them

https://islamqa.info/ar/answers/26792/النار-لا-تفنى-ولا-يفنى-اهلها

i never bothered investigating it, but as i said, i'd rather take the wahabis word for it and refute the mostrosity of mark hanson and yasid qadhi.

---

likewise, for the patently kufr position attributed to Ibn 3Arabi rahimahullah (namely that hellfire will become cool and soothing to its dwellers, the same way fire became cool and soothing to Ibrahim 3alaihis salam), senior imams of tasawwuf have clarified that this isn't his position, and is a blatant tahreef. (not sure if it is Imam Sha3rani or another imam)

 

This should be a separate thread, it doesn't fit here. But on this topic, see what Yasir Qadhi says here:



1. He claims ibn taymiyyah didn't make it clear in this book that this was actually the position he held- is this why we don't hear people criticising him for holding this view? See 39:30 onwards. And how does the wahabi cult attempt to justify this?

2. He states that Ibn Qayyim also didn't confirm he held this view- rather, after presenting his argument for it, he states 'if you ask me what I think, I will say Allah knows best'. Is this why there was no takfeer done of him for this view also? See 45:00 onwards. Although it seems from the answer he was unsure as to the permanence of the hellfire, something every muslim child will know!

3. Yasir claims here that he doesn't hold the same opinion but legitimises it as opposed to calling it out for the kufr that it is. Unfortunately it seems a few ordinary laymen have perhaps adopted this opinion- see the comments below the video.